Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2020

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Rule Discouraging Immigrants Likely to Take Public Benefits

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:57 am

Friday night, the Supreme Court lifted a statewide injunction in Illinois against the implementation of the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule, which “discourages legal immigrants in the process of obtaining permanent legal status or citizenship from using public assistance, including Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps.” The decision was hardly a surprise, as a nationwide injunction regarding the same rule was lifted late last month by the high court. But Friday’s action received attention because of the dissent (.pdf) penned by Justice Sotomayor, in which she accused the conservative majority of reflexively ruling for Trump on injunctions:

Perhaps most troublingly, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others. This Court often permits executions — where the risk of irreparable harm is the loss of life — to proceed, justifying many of those decisions on purported failures “to raise any potentially meritorious claims in a timely manner.” [citations omitted] Yet the Court’s concerns over quick decisions wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling circumstances — where the Government itself chose to wait to seek relief, and where its claimed harm is continuation of a 20-year status quo in one State. I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect.

I respectfully dissent.

I intend here not to focus on Sotomayor’s gripes but on the public charge rule.

I heard a story on NPR recently that said that the rule could affect fully 3/4 of immigrants who accept some kind of public assistance. I was, frankly, surprised by this statistic — offered by someone who opposed the rule, as evidence of how harmful it is — and can’t immediately find support for it online. (Commenters are invited to supplement my research at their leisure!)

But I should note that Cato (a pro-immigration outfit) has a contrary view, and says that even immigrants on public assistance tend to contribute more than they take, and that the rule is overly broad because it does not concern itself with the value of what they take. In a piece titled Public Charge Rule Bans Almost Entirely Self‐Sufficient Legal Immigrants, they write:

[I]t doesn’t even matter the value of benefits received anymore. Use alone will trigger a public charge denial.

This means that the government adjudicator could predict that an immigrant will be 99 percent self‐sufficient and still ban them. This rule has almost no connection whatsoever to requiring immigrants to support themselves. It is entirely about banning legal immigrants who this administration sees as a threat—socially and economically.

Basically, they believe the rule is designed, not to prevent immigrants from becoming public charges, but to make it easier to deny green cards to people who don’t speak English, or have a degree, or have their own health insurance — but who would contribute positively to American society.

I would add another concern: that the rule could discourage immigrants from seeking health care, allowing diseases to worsen and making them a health risk. This is a real problem in the era of the coronavirus.

I understand all these arguments. But I come at this from a fairly hard free-market perspective, though. I don’t want anyone taking public assistance from the government. I’d rather see private charity address the problems of the needy, and see more able-bodied people work for a living. If I have a choice of who I want in this country, I want people who don’t use public assistance.

I realize that is unrealistic and makes me something of an outlier. But I don’t really have a problem with a rule that strongly, strongly discourages the use of public assistance, even if it’s done in a heavy-handed way and even if it targets only immigrants. Half a loaf is better than none, and whatever we can do to discourage the use of public assistance is fine by me.

If these folks don’t need the assistance that much, then they won’t be that harmed by the rule. If they will be severely harmed by the rule, we don’t necessarily want to be the ones to have to take care of them.

Comments (136)

136 Responses to “Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Rule Discouraging Immigrants Likely to Take Public Benefits”

If these folks don’t need the assistance that much, then they won’t be that harmed by the rule. If they will be severely harmed by the rule, we don’t necessarily want to be the ones to have to take care of them.

This.

Basically, they believe the rule is designed, not to prevent immigrants from becoming public charges, but to make it easier to deny green cards to people who don’t speak English, or have a degree, or have their own health insurance — but who would contribute positively to American society.

Maybe, Cato, maybe. Or, maybe, in real life and not from the top of an ivory tower or a high horse, it’s aimed at family petitions for aged, disabled, chronically ill, or just plain shiftless, relatives.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:22 am
I used to hate it when I agreed with Trump, but not on this one.

Besides, I still have a lot of other things that I can dislike him for.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:25 am
This means that the government adjudicator could predict that an immigrant will be 99 percent self‐sufficient and still ban them.

I can assure Cato that that extreme theory will never obtain in real life.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:44 am
Part of this has to do with how we select (legal) immigrants, particularly from Mexico and other nearby countries. The family-preference rules allow older relatives of current residents to enter regardless of a demonstrated ability to support themselves — the family is sponsoring them. This often brings in older relatives — aunts, uncles, parents, etc — and they often have medical needs.

Back before the Welfare Reform Act (1996), older immigrants also applied for, and got, SSI payments due to age, Medicare and other benefits despite short periods of actual residence. This was stopped, or curtailed for all later immigrants.

Now, the administration is trying to further curtail use of means-tested benefits by persons who have agreed to be either self-sufficient or be supported by a sponsor. While I recognize some issues with medical care, there are clinics and such where communicable diseases can be identified and treated. Presumably, such places will adapt their methods to avoid causing immigration problems for their clients.

I would suggest an exception for medical services provided on an actual emergency basis.

As for CATO’s suggestion that a 99% self-reliant person might be excluded as a result, WTF is such a person doing cadging that 1% out of the government? Going forward, they will find another way. This is really a strawman.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:53 am
I am seeing violent agreement here.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:56 am
My experience with the immigration system is that we don’t expect immigrants to be self-sufficient from the day they arrive. They will need help assimilating and finding housing, food, healthcare, jobs, and many other aspects of daily life. The system anticipates this and provides for it by requiring that legal immigrants have sponsors who will help them in their new lives and financially provide for them when needed.

Government should not be doing this. Their sponsors should.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:58 am
After reading Patrick’s post, I was a bit concerned about benefits the would-be immigrant has contributed toward, like unemployment insurance, but according to the proposed rule, they are not counted:

Further, DHS would not consider federal and state retirement, Social Security retirement benefits, Social Security Disability, postsecondary education, or unemployment benefits as public benefits under the public charge inadmissibility determination as these are considered to be earned benefits through the person’s employment and specific tax deductions.

That seems reasonable. State, local and tribal non-cash benefits are also not included in the determination.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:59 am
It would be an injustice to deny an applicant because they were treated at the nearest hospital after an earthquake or mugging, and said hospital billed the government. There are some medical services that should be available to residents, just as police and fire services are.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:00 am
Part of the legal immigration process is passing an immigration medical exam, testing and vaccinations administered by government-approved physicians. The requirements are specific and thorough.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:04 am
If I understand this correctly, a person who has been gainfully employed for a period of years and who has applied for a green card cannot apply for unemployment payments if he or she is suddenly made redundant because it will jeopardize his or her application. For immigrants who accept low-paying jobs, this sounds like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol given the stability of employment in this sector of the economy.
Providing public assistance for a limited period seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do.
John B Boddie (286277) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:05 am
I wonder how support to special classes of admitted immigrants (Cubans, Haitians, Amerasians, refugees) count in this scheme. Not all immigrants are required to be self-sufficient, or sponsored.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:05 am
Here is the government’s webpage on the Public Charge rule.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:06 am
As it says there, Kevin:

The final rule does not apply to:

U.S. citizens, even if the U.S. citizen is related to a noncitizen who is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility; or

Aliens whom Congress exempted from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, such as:

Refugees;

Asylees;

Afghans and Iraqis with special immigrant visas;

Certain  nonimmigrant trafficking and crime victims;

Individuals applying under the Violence Against Women Act;

Special immigrant juveniles; and

Those to whom DHS has granted a waiver of public charge inadmissibility.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:07 am
DRJ,

Those exams only involve communicable diseases. One may be excluded for, say, TB or (I think) AIDS but not for cancer or lupis.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:08 am
If I understand this correctly, a person who has been gainfully employed for a period of years and who has applied for a green card cannot apply for unemployment payments if he or she is suddenly made redundant because it will jeopardize his or her application. For immigrants who accept low-paying jobs, this sounds like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol given the stability of employment in this sector of the economy.

As I quoted from the rule above, unemployment benefits are not subject to it.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:09 am
Thanks, DRJ. So it is limited the normal course of immigrant who requires a sponsor. Fine. This does leave some loopholes for administrations who (wink wink nudge nudge) allow abuse of asylum rules, but hopefully this is fixed at the hearing (or by their non-appearance at such).
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:11 am
So, we are finding out that this rule is reasonable, well-considered, and bends over backward to avoid injustice. Only persons who promised to be self-sufficient, and their sponsors, are being held to account. That the usual suspects are demagoguing this is expected. That it is Trump being demagogued is ironic.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:16 am
According to the CDC:

What are the communicable diseases of public health significance that would cause an applicant to fail a medical examination or be inadmissible?

Communicable diseases of public health significance include—

Tuberculosis
Syphilis
Gonorrhea
Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy)
And the following two disease categories–

Quarantinable diseases designated by any Presidential Executive Order. Current diseases include: cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fevers, severe acute respiratory syndromes, and influenza caused by novel or re-emergent influenza (pandemic flu).

Events that are reportable as a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) to the World Health Organization (WHO) under the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005 (currently polio, smallpox, SARS, influenza, and other public health emergencies of international concern.)

Some health-related waivers may be available for these diseases. For general information concerning the role that the CDC plays in the waiver process, you may visit our website. Additional information concerning Form I-601, the waiver application, and the requirements is located on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) websiteexternal icon.

What vaccines/boosters are required for immigrants and those applying for adjustment of status in the United States?

As part of the medical examination for immigration, all immigrants are required to have an assessment for the following vaccine-preventable diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type B, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, varicella, influenza, and pneumococcal pneumonia. Persons already in the United States applying for adjustment of status for permanent residency, including refugees, are also required to be assessed for these vaccine-preventable diseases.

Each set of Technical Instructions for medical examination of aliens has an addendum regarding the vaccination requirements for immigrants.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:17 am
Serious health problems are covered in the medical exam and might be further grounds for exclusion, if not because of health concerns but for financial reasons.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:20 am
The waivers usually apply when someone is coming here specifically for medical treatment to a facility like the NIH or a hospital that has agreed to pay for their care.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:22 am
AIDS is not excludable? Thanks, Obama!
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:23 am
There are issues for people who are already here, who came when the rules were not enforced. They are in a real bind. Churches and charities need to step up.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:24 am
AIDS patients would be uncovered in the medical exam. Their sponsor would have to prove financial ability to pay for their care. I am not sure about HIV.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:25 am
Thank you, DRJ. I’m not so sure that I should be blaming poor Obama, either. The bi-coastal Congregational delegations probably had more to do with it.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:34 am
*Congressional* not Congregational.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:36 am
The financial sponsor’s obligations are extensive and legally enforceable:

The Form I-864 Affidavit of Support is a legally enforceable contract, meaning that either the government or the sponsored immigrant can take the sponsor to court if the sponsor fails to provide adequate support to the immigrant. In fact, the law places more obligations on the sponsor than on the immigrant—the immigrant could decide to quit a job and sue the sponsor for support.

When the government sues the sponsor, it can collect enough money to reimburse any public agencies that have given public benefits to the immigrant. When the immigrant sues, he or she can collect enough money to bring his or her income up to 125% of the amount listed in the U.S. government’s Poverty Guidelines (as shown in the chart in Form I-864P).

The sponsor’s responsibility lasts until the immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen, has earned 40 work quarters credited toward Social Security (a work quarter is about three months, so this means about ten years of work), dies, or permanently leaves the United States. If the immigrant has already been living in the U.S. and earned work credits before applying for the green card, those count toward the 40.

In fact, in marriage-based cases, work done by the U.S. petitioning spouse during the marriage can be counted toward these 40 quarters.

But the obligations don’t last forever, and long-term legal immigrants can have problems and need help. The question to me is whether taxpayers can afford to pay. My feeling is people who followed the rules and have lived here for 10+ years should be treated like citizens for aid purposes.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:39 am
4. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:53 am

Presumably, such places will adapt their methods to avoid causing immigration problems for their clients.

It won’t cause problems, except for those seeking adjustment of status.

This rule is prospective, not retrospective. It would attempt to predict how likely someone would be to use non cash forms of public assistance. But once they have a green card, it doesn’t matter if they go, or are put, on Medicaid, if eligible. Nothing gets revoked. Clinics therefore won’t change their policy and new special non-government ones, won’t be set up, except maybe by some religious organizations for their members.

Now, in time, you could see insurance established, with a one-time advance premium, but no one would have a use for such insurance except would be immigrants. The establishment of such insurance won’t be encouraged because the people in favor of this change are not looking to qualify people.

Opponents of this also warn there could be a spillover effect, as people will be reluctant to use benefits even if it does not, in reality, affect anything or anyone they care about.

This is not a coordinated policy, but a unilateral modification of one by the president, based on going back, but not really going back, to the wording of the law.

I would suggest an exception for medical services provided on an actual emergency basis.

Remember, this is purely prospective, not retrospective. No exceptions are needed for emergencies, or anything else. It is purely a prediction. With arbitrary standards.

As for CATO’s suggestion that a 99% self-reliant person might be excluded as a result, WTF is such a person doing cadging that 1% out of the government? Going forward, they will find another way.

But they won’t need to, once in. It would also happen as a matter of course.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/26/2020 @ 10:18 am
12. John B Boddie (286277) — 2/26/2020 @ 9:05 am

cannot apply for unemployment payments if he or she is suddenly made redundant because it will jeopardize his or her application.

Usually, a person applying for a green card cannot be employed legally, although there are some categories where they can. Once someone has permanent residence status, it doesn’t matter what they actually do. Crazy, maybe, but who said the law had to make any sense?

There’s another Catch-22 in immigration law. Someone with a student visa is admitted on the premise that they will go back to their country. The McCarran Walters Immigration Act, passed over President Truman’s veto in 1952, says that if someone, for instance, says they will try to stay legally, they are to be denied a student visa. No, they have to indicate plans to return. Chinese students would learn from each other what worked, and study exactly what they should say.

Mitt Romney was extremely ignorant when he said, I think in 2012, that anyone who graduated with certain degrees should be given a green card stapled with their diploma. Planning to do so, even if the plan is to do so only if it could be done legally, would result in being disqualified from getting a student visa in the first place, unless that provision of law was changed.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/26/2020 @ 10:32 am
I read in the paper about someone who had a sibling who had hepatitis B. The employer of the sibling offered to put up $25,000 for medical treatment, It wasn’t enough, it didn’t say whether it was the money or the quality of the guarantee. The visa was denied and the sibling living abroad died.
Sammy Finkelman (9966eb) — 2/26/2020 @ 10:36 am
I recall some years ago, I think maybe during the Bush Administration, that the LA Times (pretty sure it was them) had one of their typical “our immigration laws are mean-spirited and unfair” type argumentative pieces regarding an immigrant family living here. The scenario was along the lines of two brothers and a sister had in the past 25 years left some Latin American country, probably Mexico, and immigrated to the U.S. They left behind their parents and one sister. Eventually their father died and then the sister tragically fell ill and died, leaving the mother on her own. So the three surviving siblings, who were by now all naturalized citizens and had started families of their own, wanted to bring mom into this country to live with them. So far, so good, but the problem is that mom apparently had lots of health issues, and the siblings had just figured that she would get help through Medicare. But of course the federal government wasn’t keen on giving Medicare coverage to a Mexican national that had never worked one day of her life in the United States. The Dog Trainer, while grudgingly recognizing that it might not make a whole lot of sense to bring in elderly people who will require expensive care, still tried to cast this as a really negative reflection on our stingy society that we were preventing this family from being reunited.
JVW (54fd0b) — 2/26/2020 @ 10:43 am
Maybe the best option would have been for the family to send Mom money for her health care in Mexico.
DRJ (76a58a) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:06 am
OT- Pete Buttigieg Steals Barack Obama’s Speeches!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4OwSo3BewU

Unbelievable: PLAGIARISM. Again! Who does he think he is, Joe Biden???

You’re done, Pete– and with luck, you’ve collateral damaged JoeyBee as well.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:15 am
DCSCA, this is also off-topic but I have been thinking about you recently. I hope you are ok. Hang in there.
DRJ (76a58a) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:18 am
Here is something new that seems to have flown under the radar:

Pregnancy an Issue For Some Visitor Visa Applicants

Though it’s not an outright ground of inadmissibility, pregnancy can result in denial of a woman’s application for a B-2 visitor visa. This is due to a 2020 U.S. State Department (DOS) amendment to its regulations, with the goal of preventing “birth tourism,” or the practice of coming to the U.S. to deliver one’s child so that the child can automatically obtain U.S. citizenship.

Under the new rule, a noncitizen who will give birth during the period of time her tourist visa is valid will be presumed to be visiting the U.S. for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child.

If you are pregnant and hope to successfully apply for a tourist visa, you will need to convincingly show that you have another valid reason for visiting the U.S. or that you do not intend to give birth there as a means of gaining citizenship for your child.

From DRJ’s link in #19: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-health-issues-can-make-you-inadmissible-the-us.html

So, Trump is quietly making citizenship tourism more difficult.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:22 am
@23. Thanks, DRJ. It’s still a daily mess; ‘three bagging’ over night if you catch my drift. It’s a long down hill spiral but we do what we can; she’ll be 89 next month.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:22 am
^33.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:26 am
Sammy,

Change in status can include going from asylum or refugee or other waiver status to permanent status, “dreamers”, applying for citizenship, converting from H-1B, etc. Eventually everything is retrospective.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:27 am
Poor immigrants.
Make America Ordered Again (23f793) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:27 am
My feeling is people who followed the rules and have lived here for 10+ years should be treated like citizens for aid purposes.

As I read the Social Security, SSI, Medicare and such regulations, any legal resident who has qualified under the 40 quarters rule is considered eligible regardless of citizenship. Some immigrants who entered before 1996 are eligible for SSI regardless of work history.

https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:34 am
DCSCA,

The last few years of my mom’s life were difficult for me to manage. I had to get help. In the end, I found a local care group home where they had 24/7 staff. As she was bedridden, amenities were not all that important, but having staff to feed, bathe and monitor her were. I could not afford in-home care at the level required.

If your mother (or her [last] husband) were veterans of a shooting war, there is a substantial “Aid & assistance” pension available from the Veteran’s administration. It is not wealth-based, but it cannot exceed the cost of care.

If you would like to pick my brain regarding my experience, Pat has my email.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:40 am
But of course the federal government wasn’t keen on giving Medicare coverage to a Mexican national that had never worked one day of her life in the United States

Legal immigrants have to follow the same eligibility rules as US citizens to get free Part A Medicare (basically 40 quarters of FICA taxes). However, any legal resident over 65 can BUY Part A Medicare if they don’t otherwise qualify. And of course Parts B & D are fee-based for everyone.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:48 am
Thanks, Kevin M 39. I was thinking about SNAP aka food stamps but that makes sense re SSI. And thanks for sharing about your Mom. I am glad you helped her but it is hard to be a long-term fulltime caregiver.
DRJ (76a58a) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:51 am
OT: Serial SWATter arrested by feds.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/alleged-white-supremacist-arrested-for-virginia-several-swatting-events-attempts-to-swat-ny-based-investigative-organization

A Texas man believed to be the former leader of a white supremacist group was arrested Wednesday for allegedly conducting several swatting events in Virginia with plans to call two more in New York, federal prosecutors said.

John Cameron Denton, 26, was charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and interstate threats to injure after he and several other co-conspirators planned multiple “swatting” calls from November 2018 to April 2019, the Department of Justice said in a news release.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:54 am
I am glad you helped her but it is hard to be a long-term fulltime caregiver.

It is impossible if you have anything else to do (like earning a living). My bottom line was that she would be safe, near family, with all her immediate needs taken care of by professionals. Between her Social Security and the Veteran’s pension the cost was nearly covered. My sister and I visited when we could, but she pretty much didn’t know we were there.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:59 am
@40. We’re managing/monitoring w/t doctor every 6 weeks, K; but as the stories go, it does wear on the ‘caregiver’- it can be very, very draining… the real issue is the progressive elements of the dementia- there’s no rhyme or reason to it; specifically, the involuntary tearing/pinching action– hence the ‘triple bagging’. It just adds to the mess– and per the doctor, there’s no sedative or ‘pill’ to quash or null out the action. So I just have to deal w/it. For instance, we gave her a nice quilt for Xmas and after a few nights, she literally pulled all the threads out of it. It’s just nuts. My advice to everyone is… don’t grow old.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:04 pm
If you would like to pick my brain regarding my experience, Pat has my email.

Same here. I was in about the same situation, but no siblings. I went for in home care, both because it seemed cheaper and I could monitor her care much better. I didn’t feel comfortable with the level of care she might receive in a nursing home. But I live in Florida, Kevin’s family in a different state…and I have no idea where you actually live now. So different locations probably mean different choices.

But if you need a sounding board, my ears are open.
Kishnevi (7595ea) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:09 pm
Sorry to hear that you are continuing to face those difficulties, DCSCA. Here’s wishing you boundless patience and unimaginable fortitude.
JVW (54fd0b) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:12 pm
We understand, DCSCA. I’m not a doctor but aren’t there OCD treatments?
DRJ (76a58a) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:17 pm
Credit to Trump and his administration on the response to coronavirus, especially how they have restricted travel. Not all state health departments have been as good. Hawaii seems to be struggling and it has a gateway airport.
DRJ (76a58a) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:20 pm
@240. Thing is, K, her late husband [my Dad] had a fairly comprehensive corporate h/c plan through the oil company. But, as greed set in over the past decade or so, the oil company out-sourced the plan to an intermediary profit-center about 5 years ago and all the retirees from the company on the comprehensive corporate plan had to scurry and sign up for separate alternative plans through other providers… it was a horrible nightmare ferreting out the affordable plan for an elderly person on a fixed income and getting her signed up– as I had to do it… it took several weeks– and the yearly payments from the company go to this ‘profit center’ account– the company outsourced to– and they make $ on the interest of the account, not us. And worse, if you have to access it for treatment coverage, you have to pay out of pocket first, then submit any invoices/bills to try to recover $ from the account if it is covered– which takes weeks if not months. When we lived in the UK, none of this bureaucracy was necessary. The NHS was much better and so much easier to deal with. Hence, I wholly support a single-payer, public option or just torpedoing private insurance through employers completely. The greed of the ‘free market’ has failed Americans on this. I’m sure most will disagree in theory on this forum, but in practical, real world, day-to-day-terms, IMO Sanders, Warren, Amy, etc., are right about this.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:23 pm
@48. DRJ, she takes an OTC iron pill, a B-12 and the only prescribed script: half a tab of quetiapine fumarate- I call it ‘the happy pill’ to quell nighttime anxiety. Remarkablly few meds for her age. Good genes. Still, the morning ‘snowstorms’ are a nightmare. ‘We do what we can’– and remain patient.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:27 pm
@47, Thank,JVW- DRJ- K– thanks to all. It’s not going to end until it ends, JVW, if you catch my drift. We’d like to see her make 90 but the sis-in-law doesn’t think she’ll last the summer. I’m betting she will.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:29 pm
BTW, apologies to P for drifting OT. I just wholly sympathize w/other Americans forced to deal with this unnecessarily costly hell.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 12:32 pm
It’s sad to think that no one in the U.S. Government will recognize, let alone try to act on, the underlying principle that is implicitly promoted by this very reasonable law: If you are not able or prepared to support yourself independently, or to seek needed assistance through non-coercive means (friends, charity, church, etc.), then you are not ready to live in a free republic.

Yes, yes, yes.

This isn’t “cold” or “black-hearted.” It’s just respectful of the nature and responsibilities of liberty. That so many people today find such respect for liberty harsh and unfeeling is a commentary on the moral state of modern man, I think.
Daren Jonescu (2f5857) — 2/26/2020 @ 1:32 pm
@54. If you are not able or prepared to support yourself independently, or to seek needed assistance through non-coercive means (friends, charity, church, etc.), then you are not ready to live in a free republic.

Yes, believe Lafayette expressed that very thing to Franklin and Jefferson and Adams and Washington.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 1:51 pm
Is there a time limit on this? It seems like it would be silly to deny a green card to a 22 yr old college graduate legal immigrant whose parents signed them up for medical when they were 8.
Nic (896fdf) — 2/26/2020 @ 3:01 pm
It is nice to have good genes, DCSCA, but OCD is a disorder associated with some kinds of dementia and it can be treated in some cases.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 3:29 pm
I think immigrant children are either undocumented or they are lawful permanent residents (aka they have green cards). There is an in between category if they are undocumented but a green card application has been filed and is pending. In that case, the Child Status Protection Act protects them from aging out before there is a determination.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 3:35 pm
@57. We just follow the doctor’s directives, DRJ- geriatrics, dementia, etc., is her area of expertise.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 3:43 pm
DCSCA,

I agree about the out-sourcing, although for other reasons. It sounds like a breach of contract to me, to promise long-term care then pull it back when people retire. With my mom, who spent every last dime she ever saw and borrowed the next dime and spent that, she had no assets other than Social Security and Medicare (and the VA A&A pension). At a point where her dementia became an obstacle to her, I executed the PoA and took over her health and financial decisions. Joint account, etc. Medical care became Medicare Advantage, which paid for nearly everything up through hospice — her input with the doctors was no longer useful. Dentistry sucks at that age.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 3:49 pm
It is nice to have good genes

Everyone on my mother’s side died with Alzheimer’s. No one on my dad’s side ever did — sharp as tacks to the end. Who knows?
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 3:51 pm
If you are not able or prepared to support yourself independently, or to seek needed assistance through non-coercive means (friends, charity, church, etc.), then you are not ready to live in a free republic.

You are speaking of immigrants here, right?
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/26/2020 @ 3:53 pm
ABC News Politics
@ABCPolitics
·
“Hopefully we can make up for the loss of time…and not be using scare tactics about people coming back to our country.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the Trump administration’s response against coronavirus is “late—too late—anemic.” https://
__ _

American Elephant™
@TheElephantsKid
·
Democrats complained when he cut off travel from China a few weeks ago that he was over-reacting! Nancy Pelosi is not to be trusted about anything.
__ _

Stephen Miller
@redsteeze
·
She complains the admin is shifting money from the 5 billion we had to combat ebola… Is ebola at JFK airport still a threat I’m not aware of? She’s lost her g***amn mind.
__ _

TheLastRefuge
@TheLastRefuge2
1) A review of the White House response to the Coronavirus outbreak…. IN JANUARY, before most were paying attention.

https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1232752316211703809?s=20
__ _
harkin (b64479) — 2/26/2020 @ 4:04 pm
@60. I executed the PoA and took over her health and financial decisions. Joint account, etc. Medical care became Medicare Advantage, which paid for nearly everything up through hospice — her input with the doctors was no longer useful.

We’ve done all that, K. Explored all options. In-home hospice care really doesn’t add anything but cost and intrusions and frankly, anxiety which spooks her all to hell– just the phone ringing sets her off for hours. So we deal with it. This really isn’t the forum to chat about this– our problem– and we’ve chosen a course of action. What the oil company did– outsourcing to a ‘health care account system’- is apparently legal but clearly done for profit,not for convenience or delivery of efficient healthcare. The bureaucracy is hellish. It doesn’t bother younger employees as much as the old retirees from the 1970s, 1980s an early 1990s. But you know, each month there’s fewer and fewer of them–as the beancounters know all too well.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 4:13 pm
I am glad your Mom has supportive, loving, family caregivers and experts you can rely on and have confidence in.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/26/2020 @ 4:30 pm
@65. Well, I’m the primary caregiver on dinner and diaper duty– the rest of the family are just… lawyers. LOL 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 2/26/2020 @ 4:36 pm
I dunno. I think immigration is such a great thing that we should ENCOURAGE people who are too sick, lazy, old or stupid to come here and get free health care, food stamps, and whatever.

After all, isn’t that “Free Enterprise”? I’m sure the Dipatch gang and the Bulwark boys would agree.
rcocean (1a839e) — 2/26/2020 @ 5:08 pm
It amazing how every single aspect of American life is subject to some Federal judges ruling? Why do we even bother with the expense of a Congress and President. Just cut out the middle man, and let the 900 district judges run the whole damn thing. they seem to anyway.
rcocean (1a839e) — 2/26/2020 @ 5:09 pm
And in other news:

Appeals court rules Trump administration can withhold grants from ‘sanctuary cities’

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/484715-appeals-court-rules-trump-administration-can-withhold-grants-from

The Second Circuit now disagrees with three other Circuits. SCOTUS will no doubt have to weigh in.

Whoosh. Sounds like the judicial tide is turning.
Bored Lawyer (56c962) — 2/26/2020 @ 5:13 pm
It amazing how every single aspect of American life is subject to some Federal judges ruling? Why do we even bother with the expense of a Congress and President. Just cut out the middle man, and let the 900 district judges run the whole damn thing. they seem to anyway.

This is overstated somewhat. A great deal of the challenges are based on statutory grounds. Meaning, Congress did not do something in the law it passed, so the President is not free to do something else. Like add more conditions on doling out money that Congress has by law stated should be doled out.
Lately, presidents feel free to do what they want, and not go to Congress and ask for their preferred policies to be enacted in law. That is a trend that should be reversed.
Bored Lawyer (56c962) — 2/26/2020 @ 5:17 pm
Just cut out the middle man, and let the 900 district judges run the whole damn thing. they seem to anyway.

How do you think Anglo-Saxon law, also known as the common law, developed? Case by case, with judges (and juries back then) making it up as they went along. Why? Because the kings and barons were illiterate slobs who couldn’t read a law let alone write one, if they could even be bothered to.

Anyhow, I used to feel the same way as you do about “the black-robed junta that hijacked our Constitution” (my words). Then Trump came along. And a do-nothing Congress that cannot keep him in check.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 5:19 pm
After all, isn’t that “Free Enterprise”? I’m sure the Dipatch gang and the Bulwark boys would agree.

I’m sure that you are just making spit up again, and excelling even your previous nonsense. Why you bother even typing that crap is a mystery
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 5:35 pm
I blame parents who scared Trump supporters with the boogeyman when they were small, Ragspierre.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 5:39 pm
“Lately, presidents feel free to do what they want, and not go to Congress and ask for their preferred policies to be enacted in law. That is a trend that should be reversed.”

Right. And its up to Congress to protect its prerogatives. Its not up to some district court judge to decide the POTUS needs to be “reigned in”. And its certainly not their right to issue one nationwide injunction after another. I’ve read that District Judges have issued 55 nation wide injunctions during the Trump administration compared to 15 during Obama’s 8 years. Not only that – but the first nation-wide injunction by a district judge didn’t occur till 1962! IOW, we got along for 170 years with ZERO.

Its obvious that some judges feel they are members of “the resistance”. Which is not their job. If we lived in a sane country this would addressed by Congress, since the Appeals/District courts are creatures of Congress. But of course that will never happen. Our only hope is the SCOTUS.
rcocean (1a839e) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:13 pm
Two days and two rulings that support the President. Judges ruled against our President, not because of the law. The used their power in the political arena. Time and time again, those rulings are being overturned.
We have a SCOTUS judge using a dissent to whine about the administration seeking judicial relief, like that is some abuse of power. I don’t quite know how a judge can opine from the bench about the executive branch, something they have no power to influence.
The federal judges association called for an emergency meeting to discuss their concerns about the DoJ. Again, judges have no say in the DoJ or how it is being managed. For Judges, they sure are stupid about separation of powers.

All the lawlessness attributed to President Trump, is turning out to not be lawless. In fact its the Judges being guilty of taking extra legal actions.
Iowan2 (1c4a14) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:14 pm
The judicial branch has an Article One Hundred Eleven (III). It trumps an Article Eleven (II).

Judges have absolute power to tell the DOJ or any other lawyer or bunch of lawyers how to behave when they come into their courtrooms. And that’s no joke.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:23 pm
We have a SCOTUS judge using a dissent to whine about the administration seeking judicial relief, like that is some abuse of power. I don’t quite know how a judge can opine from the bench about the executive branch, something they have no power to influence.

I’m curious about where you got that. If it’s your own, that’s fine.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:28 pm
Judges have absolute power to tell the DOJ or any other lawyer or bunch of lawyers how to behave…

Well, not quite. But pretty steeenking close.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:31 pm
He’s probably spouting off about Clarence Thomas recent disclosure that his previous vote to let the executive branch broad discretion in the Brand X case was a bad decision.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:37 pm
78. On what basis? It sure doesn’t say that anywhere in the Constitution.
Gryph (08c844) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:38 pm
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:42 pm
Article III.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:44 pm
Heh! You beat me to the draw, Klink.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:46 pm
81. Again fellas, where does it say that the judicial power is absolute in dictating to the executive? Guys, the framers believed that the judicial branch was the least powerful. It’s right there in the Federalist papers, as well as evident in the lifetime appointments given judges and Supreme Court Justices. You have the force of law confused with tradition/precedent.
Gryph (08c844) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:48 pm
The judicial branch has an Article One Hundred Eleven (III). It trumps an Article Eleven (II).

thats a real game changer mr nk
Dave (1bb933) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:53 pm
Personally, I was addressing Iowan2’s plaint about the judges vs. the DOJ, Gryph. But to address what I think is your point, the judicial branch is not the only word but it is the last word and has been accepted as such since 1803.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:54 pm
80. Judges have always…since before the founding…had “plenary power” (meaning “a bunch”) to control their courts. This extends to the conduct of anyone in the court. Contempt of court is the old remedy from our courts of equity and law. Being found in contempt can mean immediate confinement in the nearest lockup, and if the judge says “30” days it’s 30 days; no good-time.

That isn’t quite “absolute”, since a person jailed for contempt can avail themselves of habeas corpus and have a hearing (usually before another judge) that may free them.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:55 pm
Again fellas, where does it say that the judicial power is absolute in dictating to the executive?

We all got cross-ways on that. The court doesn’t dictate to the executive, but any member of the executive before a court has to behave themselves.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 6:59 pm
86. Since 1803. Marbury v Madison. Tradition. precedent. In other words, it says nothing in the constitution. We just accept it that way.
Gryph (08c844) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:02 pm
He’s probably spouting off about Clarence Thomas recent disclosure that his previous vote to let the executive branch broad discretion in the Brand X case was a bad decision.

I’m pretty sure it was about Sotomayor’s dissent, but I wonder where he got the idea he expressed.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:04 pm
I’m pretty sure it was about Sotomayor’s dissent, but I wonder where he got the idea he expressed.

Well, it’s probably not invented out of thin air. More likely on the talking points distributed by the SVD this morning.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:08 pm
We just accept it that way.

Yep. It pre-dates the Constitution, like a lot of other legal and equitable stuff we inherited and adopted (thankfully) from our English and Scots ancestors.

It worked, so we took it. Cultural appropriation…YEA!!!
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:09 pm
What do I know, Gryph? I can’t figure why the Apple Air Pods came from San Jose, CA and the charger is coming from Lebanon, TN when there are two Apple stores within 25 miles that claim to have them in stock. It’s a complicated world.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:10 pm
Well, it’s probably not invented out of thin air. More likely on the talking points distributed by the SVD this morning.

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to learn, because the way I read Sotomayor’s dissent, it was not addressed to POTUS. I could be mistaken, as I don’t read much (e.g., any) of her writing.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:13 pm
Seriously, now.

We can argue about the part of Marbury v. Madison that gave John Marshall the authority to interpret the Constitution, but the authority of the courts in all cases in law and equity (injunctions) in which the United States is a party is explicitly written in Article III, Section 2.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:16 pm
92. Reread the Federalist papers, Rags. The framers were *extremely* wary of embracing English common law.
Gryph (08c844) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:19 pm
Reread the Federalist papers, Rags. The framers were *extremely* wary of embracing English common law.

Two things…

which framers? (the Federalists were one faction only)

there’s a big difference between substantial law and plain old procedure.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/26/2020 @ 7:26 pm
@62:

“You are speaking of immigrants here, right?”

Actually, no, I meant anyone. I was addressing the fact that we now take it for granted that people ought to depend on “public assistance” — i.e., coercive redistribution — to take care of them in so many ways, and act like it is only new immigrants awaiting legal status who ought to have to be self-reliant.

I think self-reliance — by which I basically mean social interaction based on voluntarism, rather than coercion — ought to be the default position expected of all people in a free society. I was essentially agreeing with Patterico’s point, when he noted near the end of the piece:

I don’t want anyone taking public assistance from the government. I’d rather see private charity address the problems of the needy, and see more able-bodied people work for a living.

I share that view. It’s about immigrants in this case, but in fact it should be about everyone, if we still really care about liberty.
Daren Jonescu (2f5857) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:32 pm
That’s not Western civilization. Or even most Eastern civilizations, for that matter. It’s for hard-scrabble barbarians struggling to survive on the ragged edge of existence. We should take care of our own people.
nk (1d9030) — 2/26/2020 @ 8:45 pm
@99: Well, it was for Western civilization a couple of hundred years ago, when some very smart guys from Britain, along with a few from France, had the interesting idea that men might like individual sovereignty even more than they liked being “taken care of.”

One of the wisest of those men, Alexis de Tocqueville, warned of something he called “soft despotism,” which was his name for the eventual result of a free people, detached from political community due to the atomism of material comfort that develops in free societies, finally ceding all their liberty (including its responsibilities) to the state in exchange for a paternalist government that would promise to “take care of our own people.”

And so here we are, in the progressive paternalist hell that Tocqueville warned of, where a former free people complain that the government isn’t taking care of them enough.
Daren Jonescu (ad8e67) — 2/26/2020 @ 10:52 pm
While I certainly with Patrick that “able-bodied people should work,” I’m not sure it’s possible to draw a bright line around “coercive redistribution”.

Is it coercive redistribution to have public education? Fire departments? Trash collection? Sewage systems?
Dave (1bb933) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:14 pm
…certainly *agree* with Patrick…
Dave (1bb933) — 2/26/2020 @ 11:15 pm
It is a crying shame hard working Americans have to live life through the obsticles that fricking lawyers have created. And they became wealthy doing it to you and can lecture you about how smart they are at Patterico.com.
mg (8cbc69) — 2/27/2020 @ 1:14 am
Excellent post, Patterico. I agree with your views wholeheartedly. But, even if I didn’t, I would be hard-pressed to find fault with your position.
felipe (023cc9) — 2/27/2020 @ 4:13 am
94. ‘Where did I get “it”‘?

I am referencing Sotomeyers dissent, where she complained “the Administration” asking for stays of lower court decisions. Something in her opinion should be rare, and “the Administration” is using far to often. Ignoring the fact that it is the lower court that is often issuing rulings that thwart the Administration, and at times admit that if the order was written by a different President, they would have approved.

The larger question to you is, why would a source of info be informative as to my post? Agree or disgree,the source is irrelevant.

The large point. Judges are exposing them selves as political operatives, working to subvert the properly elected President of the United states.I just provided two examples. Discuss.
Iowan2 (1c4a14) — 2/27/2020 @ 4:14 am
I intend here not to focus on Sotomayor’s gripes but on the public charge rule.

This, alone, prolly raised the level of civility and discourse on this thread! I do not blame those who gave in to that temptation, for it was most inviting.
felipe (023cc9) — 2/27/2020 @ 4:17 am
97. Mistrust of English common law was one of the few things they mostly agreed on, along with a reflexive distrust of pure democracy. The federalists were the ones who (mostly) got their way in the constitution itself; the bill of rights was the bone they threw to the anti-federalists.
Gryph (08c844) — 2/27/2020 @ 4:30 am
OT. I wish all my fellow Christians a fruitful and sober Lent. To my Beloved Elder brethren, the Jews, I wish the same, for your counting of the Omer. In common, the peoples of G-D reflect on our losses suffered by avoid communal celebrations. Christians “give up” the worldly matters that distract our focus, things that may germinate into idols. We have nothing in comparison to the losses suffered my our Elder brethren, the chosen People.

May the Lord unite us in our worship and in our love, as we wait in joyful anticipation of a bountiful harvest of Grace. See you on the other side!
felipe (023cc9) — 2/27/2020 @ 4:47 am
The larger question to you is, why would a source of info be informative as to my post? Agree or disgree,the source is irrelevant.

Not so. If your stuff came from some other source, it would be fair and informative for me to know that source so I could go to it and find what was said and if you had accurately transmitted what was stated. As it is, you’ve explained you were basing your comment on Sotomayor’s own dissent, so we can all evaluate what you said against that backdrop.

Responding further, judges have been political operatives for a long time. This is no excuse, but is not a new condition. The supremes were thankfully able to thwart the properly elected FDR in many cases, and we should all be happy about that. Courts have always been at the nexus of laws and the people they impact, so they have always been “political”, and rightly so.

But I do agree that this period has seen too many rulings from district courts that have sweeping effect but are very thin in terms of supporting law.

I understood Sotomayor’s dissent more to be addressed to her colleagues, who she felt were biased toward the administration. That is pretty singular by itself, and I doubt it will have much effect on the court. I’ve always considered her a joke.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 5:15 am
Is it coercive redistribution to have public education? Fire departments? Trash collection? Sewage systems?

I’d say no, it is not. It is coercive when those services are paid by taxes, but not redistributive. The same taxes are assessed against all property owners. Anyone paying for those services derives utility from them

Even the coercive part can be “voted against” by living somewhere else. I live in an area where we do not have a sewer system, and where we choose our own trash collector and have a volunteer fire department. I do pay for schools, and that seems pretty unavoidable. There is an argument that I receive utility from that. But there is another argument saying that the taxes going to schools are redistribution from the childless population to those who have kids. Personally, I would regard my taxes as a pleasure if the schools taught children to be good citizens. The schools used to manage this trick under much more difficult circumstances.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 5:33 am
It may or may not be legally sound (who am I to say?), but I don’t see what’s out of line about Sotomayor’s dissent.

The argument about the government being estopped after failing to challenge the status quo for 20 years seems like more of a playful tweak to her counterparts. Thomas and Scalia have used dissents to chide their liberal (and sometimes conservative) colleagues for similar real or perceived inconsistencies more than once.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/27/2020 @ 5:35 am
I’d say no, it is not. It is coercive when those services are paid by taxes, but not redistributive. The same taxes are assessed against all property owners. Anyone paying for those services derives utility from them.

Well, people pay for the fire department regardless of whether their house ever catches on fire. And they pay for the social “safety net” regardless of whether they ever need assistance too.

So both seem redistributive in practice.

There’s another argument for some provision of basic aid from the state, and that is that children do not have control over their circumstances, and it seems rather inconsistent with honoring the value of human life to tell a child: your parent is a ne’er-do-well, so you have to go hungry.

Of course, there is undeniably a tension here because if you subsidize something (poverty in this case) you inevitably get more of it. But that’s true whether it’s subsidized by the government or by private charity, I suppose.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/27/2020 @ 5:52 am
like all fat people, justice sotomayor which means the higher soto but i don’t know what soto means, is greedy

she wants all the judicial activism for herself and none for anyone else

a miser might share, a glutton will never share

always remember that
nk (1d9030) — 2/27/2020 @ 5:55 am
Well, people pay for the fire department regardless of whether their house ever catches on fire.

Sure, but a lot of the value (utility) a home-owner derives from fire services comes even without a fire of their own. This is why you’ll find volunteer fire departments in rural areas; everybody knows they are needed and provide value. When you have a good fire service, it directly impacts your insurance, for instance.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 6:12 am
soto means dirty chineser cootie infested head lice on mitt romney

it loses a little in the translation
Dave (1bb933) — 2/27/2020 @ 6:20 am
The question is not “What do we need a fire department for?” It’s broader than that. It’s “What do we need The State for?” So a few jerkoffs can boss us around? No, the reason we have The State is so that we can take care of each other better, I repeat with bold font, so that we can take care of each other better, and that includes the relative handful of our fellow citizens in need. And anybody who doesn’t like it can build himself a longship, gather together a crew of like-minded, and go a-viking. Like his half-starved, bare-assed, barbarian ancestors.
nk (1d9030) — 2/27/2020 @ 6:25 am
…that includes the relative handful of our fellow citizens in need. And anybody who doesn’t like it can build himself a longship, gather together a crew of like-minded, and go a-viking. Like his half-starved, bare-assed, barbarian ancestors.

No conservative I know of would deny we have an obligation to help each other. The question is always “what’s the best tool?” I think the worst tool is generally the biggest government. The best tool is us, acting as individuals with individuals. There are, of course, conditions that require a mass response. What’s interesting to me is that private enterprise has shown it can respond more effectively than even the Federal government has to massive and immediate needs.

So it isn’t a cut-and-dried question.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:01 am
112. Dave (1bb933) — 2/27/2020 @ 5:52 am

Of course, there is undeniably a tension here because if you subsidize something (poverty in this case) you inevitably get more of it.

But only up to a point. One other thing you can get is government making it more difficult (or not making it easier) to get out of the poverty trap

But that’s true whether it’s subsidized by the government or by private charity, I suppose.

Private charity, if it exists, is both less reliable (which might be a point in its favor) and less permanent, but more timely and more attuned to need.

Here are some partial comments from a New York Times thread on some article

…If you have ever sat in a “welfare office” you would know that reporting, filing papers, updating information – all can take a long time….
===================================================

I know this first hand. I took a bus to get to such an office to drop off a simple form (needed to prove my low income to get a discount on a hospital bill that my student health insurance wouldn’t cover), and was told I had to sit in a waiting room despite the fact that my return bus was leaving in about 5 minutes (this was Ravenna Ohio, so the busses drove through town only every couple hours).

Luckily, I ignored the gatekeeper woman, walked into the office of the person who I dealt with on a previous trip, and handed him the form (without protest from him) and got the bus home OK. If I hadn’t been raised with an unusual amount of dignity, and dare I say it, white privilege, I probably would have put up with the poor treatment [and] missed my bus.

==========================================================================

This problem extends all the way down to the local level.

As a volunteer at a homeless shelter, I attempted to help a man apply for emergency food aid — a $25 voucher to tide him over until his food stamps kicked in. Bear in mind this man had no vehicle, no address, no money beyond what he could scrape together from gathering cans and recycling them. He had a backpack and a cell phone in a small city with very limited public transit.

1. We had to make an appointment to make an appointment — two trips to a welfare office about a mile from the city center where most other services are located.

2. He had to provide copies (at 10 cents a page) of the following:

* pay stubs going back 6 months;
* bank accounts
* tax filings
* his most recent lease (he has been homeless for 8 years)
* his divorce papers (he was divorced 11 years before)
* a current lease (!! the man is homeless)
* a valid driver’s license or state ID
*his birth certificate

The cost of traveling from office to office to collect all this material and pay for copying it far exceeded the $25 emergency food aid he was applying for.

And if he needed such aid again more than 6 months hence, he’d have to repeat all this. The local welfare office closes one’s case and destroys all your records if they haven’t heard from you in 180 days.

[The charity maybe shouldn’t have even bothered with it, if that was all he was going to get. And they could have tried to find him a one time 3-hour job or something instead of just trying to get $25 from the government – but this might qualify him for Medicaid also so who knows? Anyway that one time 3-hour job would complicate matters, so they don’t even think of it. – SF]

======================================================================

And I can imagine the staff time to take in and process all of these excessive documents costs taxpayers far more than the $25 too!

=============================================================================

Important note to orgs providing small amounts of money / vouchers for emergency assistance: skip the means tests. Seriously. Just give out the voucher or the cash when somebody asks.

In my experience, most people who need this kind of help are very reluctant to ask for it. By simply sucking it up and asking, they show the truth of their need.

[Also, I would say, somebody who doesn’t need it isn’t going to bother investing the time – SF]

If the person giving out the assistance pays personal attention, it’s not hard to discourage people who try to game the program.

Place I worked, we gave a $25 voucher to the local supermarket to anyone who asked. (If Warren Buffet asked, we would give him one.) The supermarket billed us back and included the register tapes. It was easy enough to detect shenanigans (like middle aged single guys spending the
money on baby formula for resale to street-drug dealers) from those tapes.

[Drug addicts need money too, but have a hard time getting reliable work – SF]
============================================================================

I truly cannot imagine how adults with disabilities, mental and/or physical, manage to hold on to their meager and very much needed assistance without another adult who can consistently advocate for them.

============================================================================================

I myself am a highly educated, fairly responsible, well-informed person and even I have trouble advocating for myself. The latest example was when one of my medications was increased. I had to get a regular pill and a small pill, so they wanted to charge me two copays for one prescription. If they had given me three small pills instead, it would be only one copay. My pharmacist was awesome, but even with both of us going back and forth with the insurance company, they wouldn’t budge.

The multibillion dollar insurance company is relying on that extra $30, so I have to forgo getting a primary care physician. I’ve never been able to afford a primary care physician even though I work for a school and have great healthcare. Why? Because I work for a school! So although my copay is low, I still can’t afford to take advantage of it. That’s why including benefits in compensation calculations is wrong, by the way.

[i.e. because the employee doesn’t get a choice in what to buy. It’s not a cash equivalent, and sometimes is unusable, and even if negotiated with a union can be dysfunctional in places. – SF]

=====================================================================

Programs for the poor are intentionally complex in order to prevent people from qualifying.

[They’re designed so as to theoretically cost less – and theory is all that matters – and administered on the assumption that people’s circumstances never change. – SF}

======================================================================================

you and your ilk honestly don’t get it. The people who DO need the help are at a very big disadvantage. those that don’t qualify aren’t.

========================================================
Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:27 am
Mrs. Montagu works at a middle school and there are a lot of immigrant kids. Their parents drop them off in nice cars yet it’s amazing the number who are eligible for free breakfast and lunch.
Paul Montagu (ae8832) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:29 am
In Chicago, every school kid gets a free breakfast and lunch. They have to pay, or be exempt, if they want seconds. In the summer, every kid in Chicago between the ages of 1 and 18 can get breakfast and lunch at a school with an operating cafeteria or an outdoor LunchStop on the school grounds. No questions asked.

That’s the way to do it. Anybody who resents feeding children, regardless of how rich their parents are, should move into a cave out in the desert or mountains somewhere.
nk (1d9030) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:43 am
Bernie Sanders is better at this than Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders wants free college, and to pay off student debt, with no questions asked about income or assets. Elizabeth Warren wants to exclude the rich people she wants to tax to also pay for it if they want to use it themselves. She actually doin what amounts to looking for pennies under the cushion and creating honesty traps.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:51 am
Judges have always…since before the founding…had “plenary power” (meaning “a bunch”) to control their courts. This extends to the conduct of anyone in the court. Contempt of court is the old remedy from our courts of equity and law. Being found in contempt can mean immediate confinement in the nearest lockup, and if the judge says “30” days it’s 30 days; no good-time

This is true, but it paints an incomplete picture. Judges’ power to control their courtroom does not extend to controlling the other branches of government.
Here are some examples of things a judge cannot do:

• Order the prosecution to press criminal charges against someone. Even if he has been indicted by the grand jury. Included in that is that there is no power to order the prosecution to select any particular charges.
• Order the government to call certain witnesses or present certain evidence on its case.
• Take any particular position in the litigation as to what claims or remedies it is seeking.
• Under sovereign immunity, enter judgment for money against the government. At least at the federal level, sovereign immunity also bars injunctive relief against the government. All of this is absent a waiver by Congress, which it has done piecemeal.
And, of course, mention must be made of the requirement in Article III of a “case or controversy,” which also limits the power of federal courts, and has been the subject of much litigation. I question whether an injunction that extends beyond the rights of the parties before the Court is valid under this requirement.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:57 am
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:01 am — I agree.

That’s the way to do it. Anybody who resents feeding children, regardless of how rich their parents are, should move into a cave out in the desert or mountains somewhere.

nk (1d9030) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:43 am

I don’t resent feeding children and I get that punishing children for their parents’ problems is bad, but there are certain basic obligations parents have (and should have) for their children. If they can’t feed and shelter their children, they need help and I want them to get help but it may be they need more than free meals to be able to parent effectively. Maybe they need to be on someone’s radar.

And if they can provide but won’t put sheltering and feeding their children ahead of everything else, we need to know that, too. When it is a choice, we should not support or enable bad choices. We will just get more of the same behavior for generations.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/27/2020 @ 8:00 am
Trump’s DOJ Interference Is Actually Not Crazy

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/trumps-doj-unitary-executive/607141/

Just read this surprisingly balanced article. Worth a review, even if you disagree with what is said. I particular like how he puts the thing in context of the history of the administrative state since Wilson.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 2/27/2020 @ 8:16 am
We have a SCOTUS judge using a dissent to whine about the administration seeking judicial relief, like that is some abuse of power. I don’t quite know how a judge can opine from the bench about the executive branch, something they have no power to influence.

Sotomayor’s dissent was absurd. She accused “the court” aka the 5 Republican justices of voting in favor Trump administration due on nonlegal reasons aka bias. That she would accuse anyone of bias is hilarious. She and Ginsberg vote like Robots against Trump – again and again- on every single issue. If they’ve supported the Trump Administration 5% of the time, it’d be an exaggeration.

And of course, none of the opposition is based on the constitution. You’d think any SCOTUS judge looking AT THE LONG TERM, would realize the damage these nation-wide injunctions are doing to the separation of powers and the confusion and needless work they cause the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS. But she doesn’t care. When a D gets in power, she’ll suddenly care about nation wide injunctions, and come up with a bogus “Well, its different NOW”. She and Ginsburg are both Left-wing hacks. The worst judges on the court.
rcocean (1a839e) — 2/27/2020 @ 8:17 am
Again, Congress should take the bull by the horns, and outlaw the use of nationwide injunctions by district courts. They’re abusing their power and it should be stopped. I’m not even certain the Appeals courts should have that power, but the 900 district courts certainly should NOT have it.
rcocean (1a839e) — 2/27/2020 @ 8:20 am
I agrree, rcocean. No Democrat appointee has any right to complain about judicial activism.

Warren Burger actually warned the Earl Warren Court remnants when still had the majority, in a dissent similar to Sotomayor’s, that when the shoe was on the other foot, they would be the ones complaining about judicial activism.
nk (1d9030) — 2/27/2020 @ 8:23 am
I agrree, rcocean. No Democrat appointee has any right to complain about judicial activism.

Her dissent (at least the part quoted, which is all I’ve read of it) is not a complaint against judicial activism. It’s a complaint against (what she sees as) inconsistency.
Dave (1bb933) — 2/27/2020 @ 8:31 am
She knows how to be disingenuous.
nk (1d9030) — 2/27/2020 @ 8:34 am
She knows how to be disingenuous.

She’s a wise Latina. She has crazy skills!
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 9:09 am
But the injunction in this case is limited to one State, Illinois. The Government cannot state with
precision any of the supposed harm that would come from the Illinois-specific injunction, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has scheduled oral argument for next week. The Government’s professed harm, therefore, boils down to an inability to enforce its immigration goals, possibly
in only the immediate term, in one of 50 States.

It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.One might wonder what the trouble is with granting a stay in this case. After all, by granting a stay in the New York cases, the Court effectively has already allowed the Government to enforce the public-charge rule elsewhere—why not Illinois too?

This is so childish, its hard to take seriously. One could flip it around, if its only one state, why issue an injunction? What’s so special about Illinois. The point of course, is the District Court’s reason for injuction was invalid, and there was no reason to allow it to stand.
rcocean (1a839e) — 2/27/2020 @ 11:28 am
The problem with Sotomayor’s complaint of inconsistency is that it applies to herself. She reflexively opposes every action of the Trump administration and favors – or opposes – stays and injunctions depending on who’s asking for them. Again, she never looks at the Big picture, namely that the District Courts should not be asking for nation or state wide injunctions – period.
rcocean (1a839e) — 2/27/2020 @ 11:35 am
118. Important note to orgs providing small amounts of money / vouchers for emergency assistance: skip the means tests. Seriously. Just give out the voucher or the cash when somebody asks.

In my experience, most people who need this kind of help are very reluctant to ask for it. By simply sucking it up and asking, they show the truth of their need.
My daughter works as a fulltime employee of her church. She is director of Community Outreach and Education.
A couple of years ago their community suffered a direct hit by a tornado. The Church itself was directly hit, and suffered damage that has taken more that a year to address. Their organ, one of the largest in the state was totaled.
Anyway, my daughters job was to seek out any residents, member or not, to offer cash assistance to to get through any short term issues. Hotel, food, transportation, etc. Cash to get them over the hump for a week or so. She had an awful time getting people to accept the help. These are poor people, many under employed, and strapped for cash in good going. They would not allow the church to help them. The are challenged the same way at Christmas, as they seek out families to try to help make Christmas a little more merry, than their meager incomes allow, but most say the would donated to the cause, but wouldn’t take charity themselves.
Tough to figure out.
Iowan2 (1c4a14) — 2/27/2020 @ 1:12 pm
119. Mrs. Montagu works at a middle school and there are a lot of immigrant kids. Their parents drop them off in nice cars yet it’s amazing the number who are eligible for free breakfast and lunch.
I only know how it works around here, my daughter taught in the poorest elementary school in the City. The entire school received free hot lunch, and breakfast. If memory serves, once the means testing hit a certain level (50%?) the whole school qualified. Evan her kids, with an engineer father and teacher mother with a masters.
Iowan2 (1c4a14) — 2/27/2020 @ 1:24 pm
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 7:01 am — I agree.

That’s the way to do it. Anybody who resents feeding children, regardless of how rich their parents are, should move into a cave out in the desert or mountains somewhere.

I don’t have a problem feeding children. I do have a problem with the federal government doing it. I can’t find that power in the constitution.
Iowan2 (1c4a14) — 2/27/2020 @ 1:26 pm
A true thing that many people have observed is that as government swells, it forces everything else out of play.

Again, I’ve never met a thinking conservative who is unwilling to help people. Many of us help via charities. An interesting thing about Americans is that, as early as our great market system provided the means, common people went out of their way to form and support associations to help others. There was an explosion in charities and giving. Both in time and space, there has never been the like.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/27/2020 @ 2:00 pm

2/26/2020

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Rule Discouraging Immigrants Likely to Take Public Benefits

136 Responses to “Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Rule Discouraging Immigrants Likely to Take Public Benefits”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out